Hello Everyone...thought I would run this question by you all. It seems that collector interest is growing as well as numismatic interest in this series as they are getting very hard to find in certain denominations. Anyone know of any books on the subject? Any othere errors discovered other than the 1999 "W" Uncirc 1/4 and 1/10 th oz coins? Thanks.. RickieB
I don't think there is one...why don't you write it??...you have a great set that you could take the photos from and from your knowledge of the set it would be great! (BTW--I get copy #2...signed) I wanted to write a book on the ASE but you come to the problem where it turns out to be a pamphlet <sp?>....there is tons of links out there but they all most all say the same thing and have the same info. So for right now its at a stand still....I still work on it and have taken the info and made an article but the book hasn't moved much Speedy
Good idea Speedy.. I might just do that one day. Although I better make some time investment into the knowledge end of it first. I wonder if it is public record to find out how many on the minted coins were sent overseas to pay off debt? Or, if coins were melted already, lost in fire or by other means. Why was the program started again after so many years of non public ownership of gold? We are going to enter an era of Phase 2 the use of .999 Gold in 2006...why induce the alloy? With Gold rising in value how much will these cost? What will happen to the numismatic potential of these coins? all this and much more I am sure.... See ya Speddy RickieB
Because US citizens who wished to own gold were buying them from foriegn countries and the US saw little reason to miss out on those profits. Reduce the alloy ? The alloy currently being used is .9167 gold. They are going to increase the purity of the alloy - not reduce it. Also - the AGE will also still be produced and sold with the standard .9167 alloy. The .999 gold coins are just a new option being offered in addition to the standard.
Hello Doug.. Thanks.. for the insight on the typo, however, my meaning of reduction was supposed to be "induction" of a more pure form...typo on my part..whoops! RickieB
